Hi, On 2/13/21 3:38 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 2/13/21 2:33 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: <snip> > Having this new devm_delayed_work_autocancel() helper will allow a > bunch of drivers to move away from mixing the 2, which is a good thing > in my book. > > As I said above I believe that having devm_delayed_work_autocancel() (1) > in our toolbox will be a good thing to have. Driver authors can then choose > to use it; or they can choose to not use it if they don't like it. > > I know that the reason why I did not use it in the > drivers/extcon/extcon-intel-int3496.c driver is because it was not available > if it had been available then I would definitely have used it, as it avoids the > mixing of resource-management styles which that driver is currently doing. > > And I think that that is what this is ultimately about, there are 2 styles > of resource-management: > > 1. manual > 2. devm based > > And they both have their pros and cons, problems mostly arise when mixing them > and adding new devm helpers for commonly used cleanup patterns is a good thing > as it helps to get rid of mixing these 2 styles in a single driver. I just noticed that I forgot to fill in the (1) footnote above: 1) And we probably will want one for non delayed work items to: devm_work_autocancel(), but lets cross that bridge when we get there. Also when reviewing: "[RFC PATCH 2/7] extconn: Clean-up few drivers by using managed work init" I noticed that the extcon-qcom-spmi-misc.c and extcon-palmas.c follow the same standard pattern of having an IRQ which queues a delayed work and they both miss the devm_free_irq call before the cancel_delayed_work_sync() on driver release. So just patch 2/7 here fixes 3 driver-release race conditions (fixing 3/4 drivers which it touches) as a bonus to the code-cleanup which it does. So as this clearly seems to be fixing a bunch of bugs, by simply completely removing the buggy code driver remove callbacks, this really seems like a good idea to me. Regards, Hans
